Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

[bobtheman]

I would like to discuss the implementation of a wysiwyg editor for phpbb4 in core. Not just why we like or dislike an editor but the benefits and drawbacks of adding one to core if any exist.


me personally, i prefer TinyMCE http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/index.php

[bolverk]

WYSIWYG is not a feature that is required for basic bulletin board operation, thus it falls under *bloatware* in my world and since Rhea is geared towards delivering a bare bones framework that is as featureless or feature loaded as an individual administrator wishes it to be (through extensions) I do not believe it has a place in core development. Posting editors should be based on the needs of the individual board, a perfect example of the type of feature that should be developed as an extension.

[bobtheman]

WYSIWYG is not a feature that is required for basic bulletin board operation, thus it falls under *bloatware* in my world and since Rhea is geared towards delivering a bare bones framework that is as featureless or feature loaded as an individual administrator wishes it to be (through extensions) I do not believe it has a place in core development. Posting editors should be based on the needs of the individual board, a perfect example of the type of feature that should be developed as an extension.

Who makes the determination that phpbb should be, or continue to be "basic"... Basic doesn't me we continue to use dinosaur technology and claim that our prior experiences and likes supersede future requests. Even though im not aware of what will or wont be included in core for phpbb4, i assure you there will be something that someone will argue isnt needed. i would disagree about the necessity of an editor because every board needs an editor, rather it be the simplistic one included in core or a full blown wysiwyg. Now, TinyMCE could be included on a simplistic level without all the fancy options, and the admin could chose to include whatever they wish. This is a viable solution, and the community as a whole could determine what functionality the editor should include.

the page load would be close to the same
easier to use and friendly to users new to forums
more appealing to the eye

[EXreaction]

We'll probably see a WYSIWYG editor for 4.x, though much of the ones I've seen are garbage. It may just be a plugin that is included but not enabled by default.

[jwxie]

I think we are better off writing our own one. TinyMCE and most rich-text editors are terrible. Have you guys ever look at the editor in Discuz! forum software? That one is pretty fine - not the best but surely good enough for users.

[bobtheman]

We'll probably see a WYSIWYG editor for 4.x, though much of the ones I've seen are garbage. It may just be a plugin that is included but not enabled by default.

When we include a wysiwyg editor, we would include it because it is of better service, quality, stability, etc etc than we had previously. We wouldn't change to something that didn't offer improvements. The implementation of lets say a slimed down version of tinyMCE would indeed be default due to my previous statement. Now, what we should be doing is, granted we conclude a new editor is beneficial, incorporating this and testing it in a beta version before a final release... not claiming superiority of present before we have had the opportunity to improve.

IMO there are a few open source editors out that blow what we currently use away, they arnt comparable and have many benefits that we can enjoy

[Lurttinen]

I agree on the WYSIWYG editor, but i don't agree it doing all sorts of formatting. Just the basic B, I, U, Quote, Color, Code, img and list.
Maybe automatic fetching for IMG or Descr

I think we have come far away from the times of BBCode. Opening and closing tags just feels old.
I think BBCode is more a programmer oriented way of making posts.

[code reader]

I think we are better off writing our own one. TinyMCE and most rich-text editors are terrible. Have you guys ever look at the editor in Discuz! forum software? That one is pretty fine - not the best but surely good enough for users.

such a statement is worth exactly as much as the editor *you yourself are going to present* is worth.
who are those "we" that are going to "write our own"?
if it's you, than the statement above is most respected. let's see this wysiwig editor and let us judge how much is it really better than, e.g., TinyMCE.
you are most welcome to present work in WIP states, and if others will find it interesting they are likely to chip in and invest time and effort in making it better.

if this "we" is really "somebody, anybody", than these kind of comments are no more than noise.

peace.

[jwxie]

I think we are better off writing our own one. TinyMCE and most rich-text editors are terrible. Have you guys ever look at the editor in Discuz! forum software? That one is pretty fine - not the best but surely good enough for users.

such a statement is worth exactly as much as the editor *you yourself are going to present* is worth.
who are those "we" that are going to "write our own"?
if it's you, than the statement above is most respected. let's see this wysiwig editor and let us judge how much is it really better than, e.g., TinyMCE.
you are most welcome to present work in WIP states, and if others will find it interesting they are likely to chip in and invest time and effort in making it better.

if this "we" is really "somebody, anybody", than these kind of comments are no more than noise.

peace.

Why so hash on picking this? Aren't we all referring "we" to everyone? Not just the developers? How many times has the phpBB team adapt the community's version and give credits to those who contrbute the code in their release? Always. I express my view solely based on the terrible experience with some of the editors.
I am suggesting that if we are going to just blindly use every feature they have, it would be really messy and unwise.

[bolverk]

Who makes the determination that phpbb should be, or continue to be "basic"...

phpBB, and based on all previous comments/videos/discussion I had seen my interpretation of version 4 was exactly that. The true value in version 4 was not that it would come packed with every feature ever conceived, rather it would be truly an open framework extensible so that although the core package was still lightweight and a basic bulletin board, the architecture of it would allow for true plug and play with regard to features. The best of both worlds, as minimalistic or as bloated as any particular person wanted. I have asked for clarification on this, because the answer to that will dictate whether version 4 is actually intended as such or not and if not I would rather know now before I spend any more time on something I would never use.

Basic doesn't me we continue to use dinosaur technology and claim that our prior experiences and likes supersede future requests.

"Basic" has nothing to do with the technology used, basic in this context refers to a basic feature set, the minimum functionality for a bulletin board to function as a bulletin board.

Even though im not aware of what will or wont be included in core for phpbb4, i assure you there will be something that someone will argue isnt needed.

Not if the planning and design are successful.

Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.